Game/30 + Bonus, with the first 10 moves to be completed within 20 days. No added time. This gets past the 10 move rule quickly.

After the first 10 moves are completed, Conditional Bonus time is added:
2 days IF a move is made within 1 day or 1 day is added IF a move is made within 2 days, take three days and get nothing.

This rewards responsive play and runs out the clock quickly on players who choose to abandon games.

I also would like to see ALL games rated after 1 move is complete for players with an established rating. Again this should be the choice of the Match organiser and those who choose play in the match. People certainly do not have to play under those conditions if they don't want to.

cliff wrote:My time controls are 5+(1or2), 7+(1or2), and sometimes 10+(1or2). 7+2 is pretty much standard for the matches/tournaments I post. But if I join someone elses, I've no qualms about their time-controls.

So essentially 20 moves into the game there is 47 days on the clock.

In your case a non-response penalty would work, no move in 7 days is a
-1 or -2 day penalty each day.

But since what you really want is a quick response then the bonus time should only be added IF the reply is made within 24 hours. So rather than have a penalty instead have a reward. 7+2 within one day. Nothing on the second day.

I think that the proposal that I made regarding the game in 30 plus bonus with the first 10 moves played in 20 days ends up being about the same as a short time control that you like. The bonus days are only awarded if a move is made promptly. After 20 moves about 50 days are on the clock.

But frankly I have absolutely no expectation that Greg Miller will even entertain this idea much less program it.

We could "poll it to death" and study it etc.c etc., but what is needed is to simply try it. Put it out there, people will either use it or they won't. The old time controls don't have to be removed or modified, just add a new one. As the saying goes, "run it up the flagpole and see who salutes".

There is no good reason NOT to try to solve this problem or any problem for that matter. This particular difficulty has been going on since this site has started. And it is unique to this site.

IN addition no chess wesite allows players to abort 10 moves into the game. That is absolutely ludicrous. I can appreciate the attempt to slow down rating inflation and not increase a players rating but if someone aborts a game then they loose. Maybe that will stop this rediculous habit. I think that players use this little idiosyncracy to abort games when they get into opening trouble. Rather than play their way out it's simpler to abort. And why not there is nothing to loose. That causes rating inflation. The majority of these abortionist players also have many other games going on. So they cherry pick the good games and bag the rest because they can without loosing rating points.

IN addition no chess wesite allows players to abort 10 moves into the game.

I know I've told you this more than once. Players who time out are always scored a loss, and it's rated as a loss, without regard to how many games are played.

From the GMILLER'S FAQ's:

"My opponent timed out, why didn't I receive credit for a win?
Due to the number of people who start games, make a few moves, then never come back, games where fewer than 10 moves are made are not rated as wins for the winning player. The player who times out is always scored a loss though."

So tell me please, 9 moves into the game after a couple of weeks of play and calculation, I have gained the initiative and probably a winning advantage or due to a blunder have the game in hand. Then my opponent decides to spoil my win by simply aborting.

Are you telling me that does NOT happen?

A rating isn't a prize but it is an indicator of growth and insight into this game. It's there for personal satisfaction. We also play for personal satisfaction and entertainment. So when player decides to abort well into a game not only is that time wasted but the effort is wasted, the entertainment is lost and nothing is gained.

Your forum then gets another post with an aggravated player asking why can't this be fixed and again nothing happens.

So where is the benefit? Your rule allows a loser to be spitefull. Just as spitefull by refusing to move when in a checkmated position.

There are loosing players who act out of begrudgery and spite. They are not gentlemen, theey do not act with courtesy and sportsmanship. They abort lost games, they run out a 2 month clock in lost positions or they refuse to move in lost positions, among other things.

Why can't we just play according to the rules of chess?

Rating inflation has another cause. And it is not from winning points for aborted games.

mateau wrote:So tell me please, 9 moves into the game after a couple of weeks of play and calculation, I have gained the initiative and probably a winning advantage or due to a blunder have the game in hand. Then my opponent decides to spoil my win by simply aborting.

Are you telling me that does NOT happen?

Are you telling us this has happened to YOU? Or are you running a campaign to make Greg fix stuff that isn't broken?

mateau wrote:Your forum then gets another post with an aggravated player asking why can't this be fixed and again nothing happens.

Have you seen many complaints in the forums about not getting a win counted, because of the 10 moves rule? I sure haven't.

mateau wrote:So where is the benefit?

If I recall correctly, a fairly common occurrence is players that come to try net-chess out, play a few moves, then lose interest and never returns. If those are counted as wins, the ratings would grow even faster. The rule also makes the creation of rating-puppets a little more work (and harder to hide).
My advice: (I find your tries to make things change here somewhat lacking, but these are general observations.)

If you want something to change, be fair and real in your description of the situation, try to find all arguments for AND against, and then discuss why it still should change. If Greg say no, accept it gracefully and find brand new arguments if you want to continue debating. Remember that you get more than you pay for here, but it's Greg that would have to do the work you're asking for, so don't ever claim it's just an easy little change. You have no clue about the code behind the site, so that's just an ignorant and insulting way of saying "I could do it quickly, why aren't you?".

I just deleted two posts which contained personal attacks. Please treat your fellow forum members with respect. If you want to have an open conversation about problems with the rating system, I'm all for it. I've been looking for a practical solution to the time-out issues since the site has started. But resorting to name calling doesn't help anything.

So tell me please, 9 moves into the game after a couple of weeks of play and calculation, I have gained the initiative and probably a winning advantage or due to a blunder have the game in hand. Then my opponent decides to spoil my win by simply aborting.

That can and does happen. But, odd are, if you gain an noticeable advantage in under 10 moves, you're going to have a much higher rating than your opponent, and there would be little, if any ratings gain for you. You're not robbed of anything because you still know you won the game.

It's not perfect by any means. But if you compare the number of situations where your scenario occurs with the number of undetermined games timed out at 10 moves, you'll find not rating the timeouts makes the ratings much more accurate. It's just a matter of choosing the one that's broken less.

Greg you should have left my post. I will not run away from my actions nor posts. And if he/she/it can't take the heat then don't step into the kitchen.
Who cares about timeouts?? Who cares if your rating goes up, down, nuetral... Who cares if your opp doesn't comeback to the game.Jesus christ you bunch of fruitcakes need a life, if this is what your wanting to rant about.
this has to be Conrstalk's "friend".

gmiller wrote:I just deleted two posts which contained personal attacks. Please treat your fellow forum members with respect... But resorting to name calling doesn't help anything.

I think that sums it up neatly. Heaven knows, I've made my share of comments about the 'time-out' issue, but for God's Sakes, get a grip, mateau!

This isn't the end of the world, and some of your remarks regarding Greg and the site are damn insulting! If there's a suggestion or issue maybe just discussing it rationally is more productive than flying into a rage about it!